7 ms·

Thanks for reminding me. It's been on my to-do list. This video is simply staggering in it's immensity. For the life of me, it is these events that make me ser

Thanks for reminding me. It's been on my to-do list. This video is simply staggering in it's immensity. For the life of me, it is these events that make me seriously question whether the climate change deniers have ulterior motives. The fact that the calving scale has so dramatically increased in the past 10-20 years is terrifying and how anyone can pass it off without concern is beyond me.

martinced 14y ago
What do you mean by "calving scale"? "calving scale" gives about one thousand matches on Google and they don't seem related. I think that the only ulterior motives deniers have is to refuse to face a simple fact: 8 billion people and all the cattle needed to feed them is probably something that earth cannot widthstand for very long. So either we all start eating insects (they are way more environmentally friendly than cattle) or we start limiting birthrate. I know that it is estimated that total world population shall go down by 2100 or so but I'm not sure we can wait that long. One kid per couple. Boom. Problem solved. But who wants to hear that?
- purephase 14y ago
  Watch the video in parent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_calving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_calving
- zaphoyd 14y ago
  I would guess that scale in this context refers to the extent to which the calving happens rather than a specific scale named calving.
- thesis 14y ago
  It's absolutely not that simple. Try telling a country like Japan (who projects a 30% decrease in population by 2060) couples can only have 1 child.
  - trentlott 14y ago
    First you need couples.
VMG 14y ago
I'm not a denier but I don't find the video particularly impressive. It's massive event from a human perspective, but that doesn't mean anything. The total amount of sea level change from that is probably below 1mm. You also shouldn't expect deniers or people like me, who think that there is little that can be done to prevent climate change, to be impressed by that footage.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  We're not suggesting that this 4 minute clip alone would be understood or change anyone's perspective. The full length film, showing significantly more than just one large event that happened in less than two hours, is what we're talking about and what is so immensely impactful. Edit: Wait. What? You said you are someone "who think[s] that there is little that can be done to prevent climate change" What makes you think that? Since humans are a leading cause of the existing change, almost by definition we are capable of working to prevent further damage. Sure, it's going to be extraordinarily difficult and near-impossible, but we can do it. Why would you think otherwise?
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    I can't speak for VMG, but: Assume you buy that human emissions are driving enough of climate change that if we removed that driver things would stay "cool enough". China has already markedly surpassed the U.S. as the largest total CO2 emitter, and they're not even close to the U.S.'s per capita emissions. Even if they can manage to continue to industrialize while only emitting per capita as much as the nuclear-heavy French, you're still looking at an increase of 15-20%, and I think that's optimistic. AFAIK, the Chinese are building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. And that's just China. India and Africa would like to enjoy a Western quality of life as well. I am extremely skeptical that CO2 emissions can be substantially curtailed, short of a world economic collapse that would make 2007-2009 look like a walk in the park. But I am more than willing to be convinced. I think it would help the alarmed AGW folks immensely if they would unify around a politically impractical "if we ruled the world" plan. One sufficiently detailed that it could be analyzed for its climatic, economic and social effects, as well as publicized, criticized and modified until it becomes practical. A starting point might be, "Tax fossil fuel extraction at the source at levels sufficient to reduce emissions the necessary N%". But then you have to figure out what to do about the facts that this sort of plan would likely never be accepted by Russia or China, and that it's a massively regressive tax on the world's poor. There are solutions to these issues. Figure them out, add them to the plan, lather, rinse, repeat. If something like this already exists, I haven't seen it.
incision 14y ago
>For the life of me, it is these events that make me seriously question whether the climate change deniers have ulterior motives. I don't follow. I'd think ulterior motives would be all but implicit in any case where there's even a perception of money / power to be gained/lost.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  I don't deny that climate is changing. But if we're going to pick favorites from nature's children, I think it is in our own best interest to pick mankind. I am not "truly" amazed that people can mentally delete the human population in whole or in part and claim to know what the Earth's climate should be like without mankind (or at least the "unnaturally" large number of them) as if the totality of human existence were an input to a computer model to be optimized for some target value.
- purephase 14y ago
  Mental laziness is probably best. The common argument is that the costs to curtail are so enormous that it is not worth attempting or that we would be denying quality of life to up-and-coming economies. My point is that it is easier to deny than work towards finding a solution.
illuminate 14y ago
"make me seriously question whether the climate change deniers have ulterior motives" The ones in power do, but the followers accept plenty of concepts because they run contrarian to what various "authorities" state and believe. It follows with plenty of subjects, not just "What do scientists know, anyway?" but plenty of "What does medicine know?" and other fields.

martinced 14y ago

What do you mean by "calving scale"? "calving scale" gives about one thousand matches on Google and they don't seem related. I think that the only ulterior motives deniers have is to refuse to face a simple fact: 8 billion people and all the cattle needed to feed them is probably something that earth cannot widthstand for very long. So either we all start eating insects (they are way more environmentally friendly than cattle) or we start limiting birthrate. I know that it is estimated that total world population shall go down by 2100 or so but I'm not sure we can wait that long. One kid per couple. Boom. Problem solved. But who wants to hear that?

purephase 14y ago
Watch the video in parent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_calving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_calving
zaphoyd 14y ago
I would guess that scale in this context refers to the extent to which the calving happens rather than a specific scale named calving.
thesis 14y ago
It's absolutely not that simple. Try telling a country like Japan (who projects a 30% decrease in population by 2060) couples can only have 1 child.
- trentlott 14y ago
  First you need couples.

VMG 14y ago

I'm not a denier but I don't find the video particularly impressive. It's massive event from a human perspective, but that doesn't mean anything. The total amount of sea level change from that is probably below 1mm. You also shouldn't expect deniers or people like me, who think that there is little that can be done to prevent climate change, to be impressed by that footage.

cryptoz 14y ago
We're not suggesting that this 4 minute clip alone would be understood or change anyone's perspective. The full length film, showing significantly more than just one large event that happened in less than two hours, is what we're talking about and what is so immensely impactful. Edit: Wait. What? You said you are someone "who think[s] that there is little that can be done to prevent climate change" What makes you think that? Since humans are a leading cause of the existing change, almost by definition we are capable of working to prevent further damage. Sure, it's going to be extraordinarily difficult and near-impossible, but we can do it. Why would you think otherwise?
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I can't speak for VMG, but: Assume you buy that human emissions are driving enough of climate change that if we removed that driver things would stay "cool enough". China has already markedly surpassed the U.S. as the largest total CO2 emitter, and they're not even close to the U.S.'s per capita emissions. Even if they can manage to continue to industrialize while only emitting per capita as much as the nuclear-heavy French, you're still looking at an increase of 15-20%, and I think that's optimistic. AFAIK, the Chinese are building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. And that's just China. India and Africa would like to enjoy a Western quality of life as well. I am extremely skeptical that CO2 emissions can be substantially curtailed, short of a world economic collapse that would make 2007-2009 look like a walk in the park. But I am more than willing to be convinced. I think it would help the alarmed AGW folks immensely if they would unify around a politically impractical "if we ruled the world" plan. One sufficiently detailed that it could be analyzed for its climatic, economic and social effects, as well as publicized, criticized and modified until it becomes practical. A starting point might be, "Tax fossil fuel extraction at the source at levels sufficient to reduce emissions the necessary N%". But then you have to figure out what to do about the facts that this sort of plan would likely never be accepted by Russia or China, and that it's a massively regressive tax on the world's poor. There are solutions to these issues. Figure them out, add them to the plan, lather, rinse, repeat. If something like this already exists, I haven't seen it.

incision 14y ago

>For the life of me, it is these events that make me seriously question whether the climate change deniers have ulterior motives. I don't follow. I'd think ulterior motives would be all but implicit in any case where there's even a perception of money / power to be gained/lost.

sageikosa 14y ago
I don't deny that climate is changing. But if we're going to pick favorites from nature's children, I think it is in our own best interest to pick mankind. I am not "truly" amazed that people can mentally delete the human population in whole or in part and claim to know what the Earth's climate should be like without mankind (or at least the "unnaturally" large number of them) as if the totality of human existence were an input to a computer model to be optimized for some target value.
purephase 14y ago
Mental laziness is probably best. The common argument is that the costs to curtail are so enormous that it is not worth attempting or that we would be denying quality of life to up-and-coming economies. My point is that it is easier to deny than work towards finding a solution.

illuminate 14y ago

"make me seriously question whether the climate change deniers have ulterior motives" The ones in power do, but the followers accept plenty of concepts because they run contrarian to what various "authorities" state and believe. It follows with plenty of subjects, not just "What do scientists know, anyway?" but plenty of "What does medicine know?" and other fields.